Standard CMMI Appraisal Method for Process Improvement (SCAMPI)

Characterizing Practices
Verification of Practice Implementation Indicators continues in this way at the instantiation
level until sufficient objective evidence has been obtained to characterize the implementation
of a specific or generic practice. Sufficiency at the practice level for an instantiation is determined
when direct artifacts covering the intent of the practice have been verified for the practice
and corroborated by indirect artifacts or affirmations. Consensus is obtained at the miniteam
level on the sufficiency of instantiation-level practice implementation indicators and
accuracy of observations of strengths and weaknesses.
Based upon the practice implementation data for a process instantiation, the appraisal team
(or typically a mini-team) assigns values to characterize the extent to which the CMMI model
practice is implemented. Each practice is characterized as Fully Implemented (FI), Largely
Implemented (LI), Partially Implemented (PI), or Not Implemented (NI). The intent of this
characterization is to effectively summarize the appraisal team’s judgment of practice implementation
as a mechanism to identify where team judgment is most needed, and to prioritize
areas where further investigation or corroboration may be necessary. These characterization
values are an aid, not a replacement, for the observations recorded for strengths and weaknesses,
which are used as a basis for rating decisions.
Upon assigning characterization values for a given model practice for each instantiation, the
characterization values are aggregated, using full appraisal team consensus, to the organizational
unit level. Observations reflecting strengths and weaknesses across instantiations are
similarly aggregated to the organizational unit level, and form the basis for rating. Where
team judgment is necessary to characterize practice implementation, these decisions are made
considering factors such as the mix of practice characterizations, the reason for the instantiation-level
characterizations, and the severity of the associated weaknesses (in aggregate).
Tracking Progress
The appraisal team uses focused investigation techniques (see “Focused Investigation” on
page I-23) to track progress toward sufficient coverage necessary for rating process area
goals within the appraisal scope. Revisions to the data collection plan may be necessary to
ensure that adequate objective evidence is obtained from each instantiation (e.g., project) for
each specific and generic practice within the reference model scope of the appraisal. If insufficient
objective evidence is available, the data collection plan may be revised to conduct additional
data-gathering sessions. Focused investigation techniques can be used to ensure progress
toward sufficient coverage of model practices, goals, and process areas within the
appraisal scope.
I-28 CMU/SEI-2001-HB-001